R v Bishop - [2012] NZHC 2761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-001655 [2012] NZHC 2761

THE QUEEN

v

DILLON MICHAEL ROSS BISHOP

Hearing: 18 October 2012

Counsel: R Ronayne for the Crown
AC Balme for the prisoner

Judgment: 18 October 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, DX HP 40041, Tauranga. Email: r.ronayne@rhjl.co.nz
AC Balme, PO Box 13079, Tauranga 3141. Email: balmelaw@cameronchambers.co.nz

R V BISHOP HC ROT CRI-2012-070-001655 [18 October 2012]

[1] Dillon Michael Ross Bishop appears for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of David Peter Armstrong. The particulars of the unlawful acts to which he has pleaded guilty are dangerous driving and/or omission without lawful excuse to observe the duty when in control of a motor vehicle on a road to take reasonable precautions and use reasonable care to avoid danger to human life.

[2] The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[3] I need to first shortly summarise the relevant facts. On the day in question,

8 January 2012, Mr Bishop owned a Nissan Skyline motor vehicle. It had a lowered suspension, a modified engine with a turbo charger and mag wheels. Mr Bishop had after purchase by him fitted the vehicle with a welded differential. This causes both drive wheels to turn in unison and prevents them turning independently. This causes the car tyres, once acceleration is applied, to lose traction more easily and to slide. It is common practice to modify vehicles in this way when they are to be used specifically for what is known as drifting. As I understand it there is a form of sport of activity on race tracks in which vehicles modified in this way are used in a racing or competitive context.

[4] The very thing that the welded differential is designed to do, namely to make the car drift or skid more easily, makes the vehicle unsafe for public roads. It makes the vehicle particularly unsafe when cornering because it makes the rear wheels push the back of the vehicle out so that it will slide around the corner. The reason is both wheels travel the same distance around the bend and the lack of any differential stops them making an adjustment. A locked differential means that a vehicle will not get a warrant of fitness for public safety reasons.

[5] Mr Bishop also did a second modification. He had added a rear handbraking system that was independent of the original handbrake. It is common practice to fit this sort of independent rear braking system on drift cars because when applied it accentuates the drift effect of the rear of the car. It is an improvement on an orthodox handbrake if the goal was to achieve the drift effect. This new system had a hydraulic brake line that was connected to the rear brakes. It had two spanners welded together as a handle available to the driver. This system had been welded to

the transmission hump in the vehicle but the welds were broken. A…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Bishop

Details

AGLC: R v Bishop [2012] NZHC 2761
Case: [2012] NZHC 2761
Decision Date: 18 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dillon Michael Ross Bishop has been sentenced for the manslaughter of David Peter Armstrong, resulting from dangerous driving while in control of a vehicle modified for drifting. The modifications, including a welded differential and an independent rear braking system, made the vehicle highly unsafe for public roads. Despite the vehicle's unfitness for the road, Bishop had taken it on public roads on several occasions prior to the incident. On the day in question, Bishop accelerated the vehicle on a public road, causing it to skid and collide with Armstrong, resulting in his death. The court considered multiple aggravating factors, including the deliberate modification of the vehicle, its unregistered and unwarrantied status, and the reckless decision to drive it on public roads. The court also noted the element of exhibitionism in Bishop's driving, as he attempted to cause skids and did so at high speeds in the presence of vulnerable road users.

The court fixed a starting point of five years' imprisonment, considering the high level of culpability and the significant harm caused. However, several mitigating factors were taken into account, including Bishop's age at the time of the offence, his generally good character, and his expressions of remorse. Despite these factors, the court did not grant a discount for remorse as Bishop had not fully accepted responsibility for his actions. The court also applied a discount for the guilty plea, though it was less than the usual 25% due to the conditional nature of the plea, the delay in entering it, and the strength of the evidence against Bishop.

Ultimately, Bishop was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment, ordered to pay $5,000 in reparation to the victim's family, and disqualified from driving for three years. The vehicle was forfeited to the Crown.

Orders